Managers must continually identify and find solutions to problems caused by mismatched components within the organization. A unique approach that will help managers perform this vital function is offered in . . .

A Model for Diagnosing Organizational Behavior

David A. Nadler Michael L. Tushman

c/IL anagement’s primary job is to make organi- zations operate effectively. Society’s work gets done through organizations and man- agement’s function is to get organizations to perform that work. Getting organizations to operate effectively is difficult, however. Un- derstanding one individual’s behavior is challenging in and of itself; understanding a group that’s made up of different individuals and comprehending the many relationships among those individuals is even more com- plex. Imagine, then, the mind-boggling com- plexity of a large organization made up of thousands of individuals and hundreds of groups with myriad relationships among these individuals and groups.

But organizational behavior must be managed in spite of this overwhelming complexity; ultimately the organization’s work gets done through people, individually or collectively, on their own or in collabora- tion with technology. Therefore, the man- agement of organizational behavior is central to the management task-a task that involves the capacity to understund the behavior patterns of individuals, groups, and orga- nizations, to predict what behavioral re- sponses will be elicited by various manage- rial actions, and finally to use this under- standing and these predictions to achieve control.

How can one achieve understand-

Organizational Dynamics, Autumn 1980. 0 1980, AMACOM, a division of American Management Associations. AI/ rights reserved. 0090-2616/80/0015-0035/$02.00/O 35

36

ing and learn how to predict and control or- ganizational behavior? Given its inherent complexity and enigmatic nature, one needs tools to unravel the mysteries, paradoxes, and apparent contradictions that present themselves in the everyday life of organiza- tions. One tool is the conceptual framework or model. A model is a theory that indicates which factors (in an organization, for ex- ample) are most critical or important. It also shows how these factors are related-that is, which factors or combination of factors cause other factors to change. In a sense then, a model is a roadmap that can be used to make sense of the terrain of organiza- tional behavior.

The models we use are critical be- cause they guide our analysis and action. In any organizational situation, problem solv- ing involves the collection of information about the problem, the interpretation of that information to determine specific problem types and causes, and the development of ac- tion plans accordingly. The models that indi- viduals use influence the kind of data they collect and the kind they ignore; models guide people’s approach to analyzing or in- terpreting the data they have; finally, mod- els help people choose their course of action.

Indeed, anyone who has been ex- posed to an organization already has some sort of implicit model. People develop these roadmaps over time, building on their own experiences. These implicit models (they us- ually are not explicitly written down or stated) guide behavior; they vary in quality, validity, and sophistication depending on the nature and extent of the experiences of the model builder, his or her perceptiveness, his or her ability to conceptualize and generalize from experiences, and so on.

We are not solely dependent, how- ever, on the implicit and experience-based models that individuals develop. Since there has been extensive research and theory de- velopment on the subject of organizational

David A. Nadler is an associate professor at the Graduate School of Business, Columbia University. He receiued his M.B.A. from the Harvard Business School and a Ph.D. in

psychology from the University of Michigan. Before coming to Columbia, he was on the staff of the institute for Social Research at the

University of Michigan. His research on organizational behavior has focused on

questions of planned organizational change, fhc

use of feedback as a tool, and problems of groups in organizations. He has written many articles and five books on management and

organizationa! behavior, including Managing Organizational Behavior (Little, Brown. 1979).

which he coauthored with Richard Hackman

and Edward Lawler. ln the course of his

research and cunsultation he has worked with

many major organizations on problems of organizational design, planned organizational

change, and management. He is on the editorial board of Organizational Dynamics and the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.

behavior over the last four decades, it is pos- sible to use scientifically developed explicit models for analyzing organizational behav- ior and solving organizational problems.

We plan to discuss one particular model, a general model of organizations. In- stead of describing a specific phenomenon or aspect of organizational life (such as a model of motivation or a model of organizational design), the general model of organization attempts to provide a framework for think- ing about the organization as a total system. The model’s major premise is that for organi-

zations to be effective, their subparts or components must be consistently structured and managed-they must approach a state of congruence.

In the first section of this article, we will discuss the basic view of organizations that underlies the model-that is, systems theory. In the second section, we will present and discuss the model itself. In the third sec- tion, we will present an approach to using the model for organizational problem anal- ysis. Finally, we will discuss some of the model’s implications for thinking about or- ganizations.

A BASIC VIEW OF ORGANIZATIONS

There are many different ways of thinking about organizations. When a manager is asked to “draw a picture of an organi- zation,” he or she typically draws some ver- sion of a pyramidal organizational chart. This is a model that views the stable, formal relationships among the jobs and formal work units as the most critical factors of the organization. Although this clearly is one way to think about organizations, it is a very limited view. It excludes such factors as lead- ership behavior, the impact of the environ- ment, informal relations, power distribu- tion, and so on. Such a model can capture only a small part of what goes on in organi- zations. Its perspective is narrow and static.

The past two decades have seen a growing consensus that a viable alternative to the static classic models of organizations is to envision the organization as a social system. This approach stems from the obser- vation that social phenomena display many of the characteristics of natural or mechan- ical systems. In particular, as Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn have argued, organiza- tions can be better understood if they are con- sidered as dynamic and open social systems.

What is a system? Most simply, a

Michael Tushman is an associate professor of

organizational behavior at the Graduate School

of Business. Columbia University. He received

his B.S. in electrical engineering from Northeastern University, his M.S. in

organizational behavior from Cornell, and his

Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the

Sloan School of Management at M.I. T.

Professor Tushman’s researc.h interesfs focus on

understanding the process of innovation and

new product/process development in technology-based firms. He lzus used the

congruence model as both a research and

consulting tool in several high technology

organizations. He has published his research in

many journals and is a member of the

Academy ofManagement, T.I.M.S., A.A.A.S.

and the Product Development Association. His

book with David Nadler and Nina Hatvany,

Approaches to Managing Organizational Behavior: Readings and Cases, will soon be

published by Little, Brown Inc.

system is a set of interrelated elements-that is, a change in one element affects other ele- ments. An open system is one that interacts with its environment; it is more than just a set of interrelated elements. Rather, these elements make up a mechanism that takes in- put from the environment, subjects it to some form of transformation process, and produces output. At the most general level, it should be easy to visualize organizations as systems. Let’s consider a manufacturing plant, for example. It is made up of different related components (a number of depart- 37

38

ments, jobs technologies, and so on). It re- ceives inputs from the environment-that is, labor, raw material, production orders, and so on-and transforms these inputs into products.

As systems, organizations display a number of basic systems characteristics. Some of the most critical are these:

l Internal inter~he. Changes in one component or subpart of an organiza- tion frequently have repercussions for other parts; the pieces are interconnected. Again, as in the manufacturing plant example, changes made in one element (for example, the skill levels of those hired to do jobs) will affect other elements (the productiveness of equipment used, the speed or quality of pro- duction activities, the nature of supervision needed, and so on).

l Capacity for feedback-that is, information about the output that can be used to control the system. Organizations can correct errors and even change them- selves because of this characteristic. If in our plant example plant management receives in- formation that the quality of its product is declining, it can use this information to iden- tify factors in the system itself that contrib- ute to this problem. However, it is important to note that, unlike mechanized systems, feedback information does not always lead to correction. Organizations have the poten- tial to use feedback to become self-correcting systems, but they do not always realize this potential.

l Equilibrium-that is, a state of balance. When an event puts the system out of balance the system reacts and moves to bring itself back into balance. If one work group in our plant example were suddenly to increase its performance dramatically, it would throw the system out of balance. This group would be making increasing demands on the groups that supply it with the infor- mation or materials it needs; groups that

work with the high-performing group’s out- put would feel the pressure of work-in-pro- cess inventory piling up in front of them. If some type of incentive is in effect, other groups might perceive inequity as this one group begins to earn more. We would pre- dict that some actions would be taken to put the system back into balance. Either the rest of the plant would be changed to increase production and thus be back in balance with the single group, or (more likely) there would be pressure to get this group to mod- ify its behavior in line with the performance levels of the rest of the system (by removing workers, limiting supplies, and so on). The point is that somehow the system would de- velop energy to move back toward a state of equilibrium or balance.

l Equifinality. This characteristic of open systems means that different system configurations can lead to the same end or to the same type of input-output conversion. Thus there’s no universal or “one best way” to organize.

l Adaptation. For a system to sur- vive, it must maintain a favorable balance of input or output transactions with the envi- ronment or it will run down. If our plant produces a product for which there are fewer applications, it must adapt to new demands and develop new products; otherwise, the plant will ultimately have to close its doors. Any system, therefore, must adapt by changing as environmental conditions change. The consequences of not adapting are evident when once-prosperous organiza- tions decay (for example, the eastern rail- roads) because they fail to respond to envi- ronmental changes.

Thus systems theory provides a way of thinking about the organization in more complex and dynamic terms. But al- though the theory provides a valuable basic perspective on organizations, it is limited as a problem-solving tool. This is because a

model systems theory is too abstract for use in day-today analysis of organizational be- havior problems. Because of the level of ab- straction of systems theory, we need to de- velop a more specific and pragmatic model based on the concepts of the open systems paradigm.

A CONGRUENCE MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

Given the level of abstraction of open the- ory, our job is to develop a model that re- flects the basic systems concepts and charac- teristics, but that is more specific and thus more usable as an analytic tool. We will describe a model that specifies the critical inputs, the major outputs, and the transfor- mation processes that characterize organiza- tional functioning.

The model puts its greatest em- phasis on the transformation process and specifically reflects the critical system prop- erty of interdependence. It views organiza- tions as made up of components or parts that interact with each other. These components exist in states of relative balance, consis- tency, or “fit” with each other. The differ- ent parts of an organization can fit well to- gether and function effectively, or fit poorly and lead to problems, dysfunctions, or per- formance below potential. Our congruence model of organizational behavior is based on how well components fit together-that is, the congruence among the components; the effectiveness of this model is based on the quality of these “fits” or congruence.

The concept of congruence is not a new one. George Homans in his pioneering work on social processes in organizations emphasized the interaction and consistency among key elements of organizational be- havior. Harold Leavitt, for example, identi- fied four major components of organization

as being people, tasks, technology, and structure. The model we will present here builds on these views and also draws from fit models developed and used by James Seiler, Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch, and Jay Lorsch and Alan Sheldon.

It is important to remember that we are concerned about creating a model for be- havioral systems of the organization-the system of elements that ultimately produce behavior patterns and, in turn, organization- al performance. Put simply, we need to deal with questions of the inputs the system has to work with, the outputs it must produce, the major components of the transformation process, and the ways in which these com- ponents interact.

Inputs

Inputs are factors that, at any one point in time, make up the “givens” facing the orga- nization. They’re the material that the orga- nization has to work with.. There are several different types of inputs, each of which pre- sents a different set of “givens” to the organi- zation (see Figure 1 for an overview of in- puts).

The first input is the environment, or all factors outside the organization being examined. Every organization exists within the context of a larger environment that in- cludes individuals, groups, other organiza- tions, and even larger social forces-all of which have a potentially powerful impact on how the organization performs. Specifically, the environment includes markets (clients or customers), suppliers, governmental and regulatory bodies, labor unions, competi- tors, financial institutions, special interest groups, and so on. As research by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Gerald Salancik has suggested, the environment is critical to organizational functioning.

The environment has three critical 39

Figu

re

1 KE

Y OR

GANI

ZATI

ONAL

IN

PUTS

Inpu

t

Defin

ition

Envir

onm

ent

All

fact

ors,

inc

luding

in

stitu

- tio

ns,

grou

ps,

indivi

duals

, ev

ents

, an

d so

on,

th

at

are

outs

ide

the

orga

nizat

ion

being

an

alyz

ed,

but

that

ha

ve

a po

tent

ial

impa

ct

on t

hat

orga

nizat

ion.

Critic

al

Feat

ures

1.

Wha

t de

man

ds

does

the

fo

r An

alys

is en

viron

men

t m

ake

on t

he

orga

nizat

ion?

2. H

ow

does

th

e en

viron

men

t pu

t co

nstra

ints

on

org

ani-

zatio

nal

actio

n?

Reso

urce

s Hi

stor

y

Vario

us

asse

ts to

whi

ch

the

orga

nizat

ion

has

acce

ss,

in-

cludin

g hu

man

re

sour

ces,

te

chno

logy

, ca

pita

l, inf

orm

a-

tion,

an

d so

on,

as

well

as

less

ta

ngibl

e re

sour

ces

(reco

gnitio

n in

the

mar

ket,

and

so f

orth

).

The

patte

rns

of p

ast

beha

vior,

activ

ity,

and

effe

ctive

ness

of

th

e or

ganiz

ation

th

at

may

af

fect

cu

rrent

or

ganiz

ation

al fu

nctio

ning

.

1. W

hat

is th

e re

lative

qu

ality

of

the

diff

eren

t re

sour

ces

to w

hich

th

e or

ganiz

ation

ha

s ac

cess

?

1.

Wha

t ha

ve

been

th

e m

ajor

stag

es o

r ph

ases

of

th

e or

ganiz

ation

’s de

velop

men

t?

2.

To w

hat

exte

nt

are

reso

urce

s fix

ed

rath

er

than

fle

xible

in th

eir

conf

igura

- tio

n(s)

?

2. W

hat

is th

e cu

rrent

im

pact

of

suc

h hi

stor

ical

fact

ors

as

stra

tegi

c de

cisio

ns,

acts

of

key

lea

ders

, cr

ises,

an

d

core

val

ues

and

norm

s?

Stra

tegy

The

stre

am

of d

ecisi

ons

abou

t ho

w or

ganiz

ation

al re

sour

ces

will

be c

onfig

ured

to

mee

t th

e de

man

ds,

cons

train

ts,

and

oppo

rtunit

ies

with

in

the

con-

te

xt o

f th

e or

ganiz

ation

’s hi

stor

y.

1. Ho

w ha

s th

e or

ganiz

ation

de

fined

its

cor

e m

issio

n,

includ

ing

the

mar

kets

it

serv

es a

nd

the

prod

ucts

/ se

rvice

s it

prov

ides

to t

hese

m

arke

ts?

2. O

n wh

at

basis

doe

s it

com

pete

?

3. W

hat

supp

ortin

g st

rate

gies

ha

s th

e or

ganiz

ation

em

ploye

d to

ach

ieve

the

core

m

issio

n?

4. W

hat

spec

ific

obje

ctive

s ha

ve

been

se

t fo

r or

ganiz

a-

tiona

l ou

tput

?

features that affect organizational analysis. First, the environment makes demands on the organization. For example, it may re- quire certain products or services at certain levels of quality or quantity. Market pres- sures are particularly important here. Sec- ond, the environment may place constraints on organizational action. It may limit the activities in which an organization may en- gage. These constraints range from limita- tions imposed by scarce capital to prohibi- tions set by government regulations. Third, the environment provides opportunities that the organization can explore. When we an- alyze an organization, we need to consider the factors in the organization’s environment and determine how those factors, singly or collectively, create demands, constraints, or opportunities.

The second input is the organiza- tion’s resources. Any organization has a range of different assets to which it has ac- cess. These include employees, technology, capital, information, and so on. Resources can also include less tangible assets, such as the perception of the organization in the marketplace or a positive organizational cli- mate. A set of resources can be shaped, de- ployed, or configured in different ways by an organization. For analysis purposes, two features are of primary interest. One con- cerns the relative quality of those resources or their value in light of the environment. The second concerns the extent to which re- sources can be reshaped or how fixed or flex- ible different resources are.

The third input is the organiza- tion’s history. There’s growing evidence that the way organizations function today is greatly influenced by past events. It is partic- ularly important to understand the major stages or phases of an organization’s devel- opment over a period of time, as well as the current impact of past events-for example, key strategic decisions, the acts or behavior

of key leaders, the nature of past crises and the organization’s responses to them, and the evolution of core values and norms of the or- ganization .

The final input is somewhat differ- ent from the others because in some ways it reflects some of the factors in the organiza- tion’s environment, resources, and history. The fourth input is strategy. We use this term in its broadest context to describe the whole set of decisions that are made about how the organization will configure its re- sources against the demands, constraints, and opportunities of the environment within the context of its history. Strategy refers to the issue of matching the organization’s re- sources to its environment, or making the fundamental decision of “What business are we in?” For analysis purposes, several as- pects of strategy are important to identify. First, what is the core mission of the organi- zation, or how has the organization defined its basic purpose or function within the larg- er system or environment? The core mission includes decisions about what markets the organization will serve, what products or services it will provide to those markets, and how it will compete in those markets. Sec- ond, strategy includes the specific support- ing strategies (or tactics) the organization will employ or is employing to achieve its core mission. Third, it includes the specific performance or output objectives that have been established.

Strategy may be the most impor- tant single input for the organization. On one hand, strategic decisions implicitly de- termine the nature of the work the organiza- tion should be doing or the tasks it should perform. On the other hand, strategic deci- sions, and particularly decisions about ob- jectives determine the system’s outputs.

In summary, there are three basic inputs-environment, resources, and history -and a fourth derivative input, strategy, 41

Figu

re

2 KE

Y OR

GANI

ZATI

ONAL

CO

MPON

ENTS

Critic

al

Feat

ures

1.

The

ty

pes

of s

kill

and

I. Kn

owled

ge

and

skills

1.

Org

aniza

tion

desig

n,

for

Anal

ysis

know

ledge

de

man

ds

the

indivi

duals

ha

ve.

includ

ing

grou

ping

of f

unc-

wo

rk

pose

s. 2.

In

dividu

al ne

eds

and

tions

, st

ruct

ure

of s

ubun

its,

2. T

he

type

s of

rew

ards

th

e pr

efer

ence

s.

and

coor

dinat

ion

and

work

ca

n pr

ovide

, co

ntro

l m

echa

nism

s.

3.

Perc

eptio

ns

and

3. T

he

degr

ee

of u

ncer

tain

ty

expe

ctan

cies.

2.

Job

des

ign.

asso

ciate

d wi

th

the

work

, 3.

W

ork

envir

onm

ent.

includ

ing

such

fa

ctor

s as

4.

Ba

ckgr

ound

fa

ctor

s.

4. H

uman

re

sour

ce

man

age-

m

ent

syst

ems.

int

erde

pend

ence

, ro

utine

- ne

ss,

and

so o

n,

Com

pone

nt

Task

In

dividu

al Fo

rmal

Or

ganiz

ation

al Ar

rang

emen

ts

Defin

ition

The

basic

and

inh

eren

t wo

rk

to

The

char

acte

ristic

s of

ind

i- Th

e va

rious

st

ruct

ures

, pr

o-

be d

one

by t

he o

rgan

izatio

n vid

uals

in th

e or

ganiz

ation

. ce

sses

, m

etho

ds,

and

so o

n

and

its p

arts

. th

at

are

form

ally

crea

ted

to

get

indivi

duals

to

per

form

ta

sks.

Infor

mal

Orga

nizat

ion

The

emer

ging

arra

ngem

ents

, inc

luding

st

ruct

ures

, pr

oces

ses,

re

latio

nshi

ps,

and

so f

orth

.

1. L

eade

r be

havio

r.

2.

Intra

grou

p re

latio

ns.

3.

Inte

rgro

up

rela

tions

.

4. I

nfor

mal

wo

rkin

g ar

rang

e-

men

ts.

5.

Com

mun

icatio

n an

d inf

luenc

e pa

ttern

s.

4.

The

cons

train

ts

on p

erfo

r- m

ance

de

man

ds

inher

ent

in th

e wo

rk

(give

n a

stra

tegy

).

which determines how the organization re- sponds to or deals with the basic inputs. Strategy is critical because it determines the work to be performed by the organization and it defines desired organizational outputs.

OUtpUtS

Outputs are what the organization produces, how it performs, and how effective it is. There has been a lot of discussion about the components of an effective organization. For our purposes, however, it is possible to iden- tify several key indicators of organizational output. First, we need to think about system output at different levels. In addition to the system’s basic output-that is, the product- we need to think about other outputs that contribute to organizational performance, such as the functioning of groups or units within the organization or the functioning of individual organization members.

At the organizational level, three factors must be kept in mind when evaluat- ing organizational performance: (1) goal at- tainment, or how well the organization meets its objectives (usually determined by strategy), (2) resource utilization, or how well the organization makes use of available resources (not just whether the organization meets its goals, but whether it realizes all of its potential performance and whether it achieves its goals by building resources or by “burning them up”), and (3) adaptability, or whether the organization continues to posi- tion itself in a favorable position vis-&vis its environment-that is, whether it is capable of changing and adapting to environmental changes.

Obviously, the functioning of groups or units (departments, divisions, or other sub- units within the organization) contribute to these organizational-level outputs. Organiza- tional output is also influenced by individual behavior, and certain individual-level outputs

(affective reactions such as satisfaction, stress, or experienced quality of working life) may be desired outputs in and of themselves.

The Organization as a Transformation Process

So far, we’ve defined the nature of inputs and outputs of the organizational system. This leads us to the transformation process. Given an environment, a set of resources, and his- tory, “How do I take a strategy and implement it to produce effective performance in the or- ganization, in the group/unit, and among in- dividual employees?”

In our framework, the organization and its major component parts are the fun- damental means for transforming energy and information from inputs into outputs. On this basis, we must determine the key components of the organization and the cri- tical dynamic that shows how those com- ponents interact to perform the transforma- tion function.

Organizational Components

There are many different ways of thinking about what makes up an organization. At this point in the development of a science of organizations, we probably do not know the one right or best way to describe the differ- ent components of an organization. The task is to find useful approaches for describing organizations, for simplifying complex phe- nomena, and for identifying patterns in what may at first blush seem to be random sets of activity. Our particular approach views or- ganizations as composed of four major com- ponents: (1) the task, (2) the individuals, (3) the formal organizational arrangements, and (4) the informal organization. We will dis- cuss each of these individually (see Figure 2 for overviews of these components).

The first component is the organi- 43

zation’s task-that is, the basic or inherent work to be done by the organization and its subunits or the activity the organization is engaged in, particularly in light of its strat- egy. The emphasis is on the specific work ac- tivities or functions that need to be done and their inherent characteristics (as opposed to characteristics of the work created by how the work is organized or structured in this particular organization at this particular time). Analysis of the task would include a description of the basic work flows and func- tions with attention to the characteristics of those work flows-for example, the knowl- edge or skills demanded by the work, the kinds of rewards provided by the work, the degree of uncertainty associated with the work, and the specific constraints inherent in the work (such as critical time demands, cost constraints, and so on). Since it’s assumed that a primary (although not the only) rea- son for the organization’s existence is to per- form the task consistent with strategy, the task is the starting point for the analysis. As we will see, the assessment of the adequacy of other components depends to a large de- gree on an understanding of the nature of the tasks to be performed.

A second component of organiza- tions involves the individuals who perform organizational tasks. The issue here is identi- fying the nature and characteristics of the or- ganization’s employees (or members). The most critical aspects to consider include the nature of individual knowledge and skills, the different needs or preferences that indi- viduals have, the perceptions or expectancies that they develop, and other background factors (such as demographics) that may po- tentially influence individual behavior.

The third component is the formal organizational arrangements. These include the range of structures, processes, methods, procedures, and so forth that are explicitly

44 and formally developed to get individuals to

perform tasks consistent with organizational strategy. The broad term, organizational arrangements, encompasses a number of dif- ferent factors. One factor is organization de- sign-that is, the way jobs are grouped to- gether into units, the internal structure of those units, and the coordination and con- trol mechanisms used to link those units to- gether. A second factor is the way jobs are designed within the context of organization- al designs. A third factor is the work envi- ronment, which includes a number of factors that characterize the immediate environment in which work is done, such as the physical working environment, the available work resources, and so on. A final factor includes the organization’s formal systems for attract- ing, placing, developing, and evaluating hu- man resources.

Together, these factors create the set of formal organizational arrangements- that is, they are explicitly designed and spe- cified, usually in writing.

The final component is the infor- mal organization. Despite the set of formal organizational arrangements that exists in any organization, another set of arrange- ments tends to develop or emerge over a pe- riod of time. These arrangements are usually implicit and unwritten, but they influence a good deal of behavior. For lack of a better term, such arrangements are frequently re- ferred to as the informal organization and they include the different structures, pro- cesses, and arrangements that emerge while the organization is operating. These arrange- ments sometimes complement formal orga- nizational arrangements by providing struc- tures to aid work where none exist. In other situations they may arise in reaction to the formal structure, to protect individuals from it. They may therefore either aid or hinder the organization’s performance.

Because a number of aspects of the informal organization have a particularly

critical effect on behavior, they need to be considered. The behavior of leaders (as op- posed to the formal creation of leader posi- tions) is an important feature of the informal organization, as are the patterns of relation- ships that develop both within and between groups. In addition, different types of infor- mal working arrangements (including rules, procedures, methods, and so on) develop. Finally, there are the various communication and influence patterns that combine to create the informal organization design.

Organizations can therefore be thought of as a set of components-the task, the individuals, the organizational arrange- ments, and the informal organization. In any system, however, the critical question is not what the components are, but what the na- ture of their interaction is. This model raises the question: What are the dynamics of the relationships among the components? TO deal with this issue, we must return to the concept of congruence or fit.

The Concept of Congruence

A relative degree of congruence, consisten- cy, or “fit” exists between each pair of orga- nizational inputs. The congruence between two components is defined as “the degree to which the needs, demands, goals, objectives, and/or structures of one component are con- sistent with the needs, demands, goals, ob- jectives, and/or structures of another com- ponent .‘I

Congruence, therefore, is a meas- ure of how well pairs of components fit to- gether. Consider, for example, two compon- ents-the task and the individual. At the simplest level, the task presents some de- mands on individuals who would perform it (that is, skill/knowledge demands). At the same time, the set of individuals available to do the tasks have certain characteristics (their levels of skill and knowledge). Obvi-

ously, if the individual’s knowledge and skill match the knowledge and skill demanded by the task, performance will be more effective.

Obviously, too, the individual-task congruence relationship encompasses more factors than just knowledge and skill. Sim- ilarly, each congruence relationship in the model has its own specific characteristics. Research and theory can guide the assess- ment of fit in each relationship. For an over- view of the critical elements of each congru- ence relationship, see Figure 3.

The Congruence Hypothesis

The aggregate model, or whole organiza- tion, displays a relatively high or low degree of system congruence in the same way that each pair of components has a high or low degree of congruence. The basic hypothesis of the model, which builds on this total state of congruence, is as follows: “Other things being equal, the greater the total degree of congruence or fit between the various com- ponents, the more effective will be the orga- nization-effectiveness being defined as the degree to which actual organization outputs at individual, group, and organizational lev- els are similar to expected outputs, as speci- fied by strategy.“

The basic dynamic of congruence sees the organization as most effective when its pieces fit together. If we also consider strategy, this view expands to include the fit between the organization and its larger envi- ronment-that is, an organization is most ef- fective when its strategy is consistent with its environment (in light of organizational re- sources and history) and when the organiza- tional components are congruent with the tasks necessary to implement that strategy.

One important implication of the congruence hypothesis is that organizational problem analysis (or diagnosis) involves de- scription of the system, identification of 45

Fit

Individual/Organization

Individual/Task

IndividuaVlnfomal organization

Task/Organization

Tusk/Informal organization

Organization/lnforrnal organization

Figure 3 DEFINITIONS OF FITS

Issues

How are individual needs met by the organizational arrangements? Do individuals hold clear or distorted perceptions of organiza- tional structures? Is there a convergence of individual and organ- izational goals?

How are individual needs met by the tasks? Do individuals have skills and abilities to meet task demands?

How are individual needs met by the informal organization? How does the informal organization make use of individual re- sources consistent with informal goals?

Are organizational arrangements adequate to meet the demands of the task? Do organizational arrangements motivate behavior that’s consistent with task demands?

Does the informal organization structure facilitate task perfor- mance or not? Does it hinder or help meet the demands of the task.

Are the goals, rewards, and structures of the informal organiza- tion consistent with those of the formal organization?

46

problems, and analysis of fits to determine the causes of problems. The model also im- plies that different configurations of the key components can be used to gain outputs (consistent with the systems characteristic of equifinality). Therefore the question is not how to find the “one best way” of managing, but how to find effective combinations of components that will lead to congruent fits among them.

The process of diagnosing fits and identifying combinations of components to produce congruence is not necessarily intui- tive. A number of situations that lead to con- gruence have been defined in the research lit- erature. Thus in many cases fit is something that can be defined, measured, and even quantified; there is, in other words, an em- pirical and theoretical basis for assessing fit. The theory provides considerable guidance about what leads to congruent relationships

(although in some areas the research is more definitive and helpful than others). The im- plication is that the manager who wants to diagnose behavior must become familiar with critical aspects of relevant organiza- tional behavior models or theories so that he or she can evaluate the nature of fits in a par- ticular system.

The congruence model provides a general organizing framework. The organi- zational analyst will need other, more spe- cific “submodels” to define high and low congruence. Examples of such submodels that might be used in the context of this gen- eral diagnostic model include the following: (I) the job characteristics model to assess and explain the fit between individuals and tasks as well as the fit between individuals and organizational arrangements (job de- sign), (2) expectancy theory models of moti- vation to explain the fit between individuals

Figure 4 A CONGRUENCE MODEL FOR ORGANIZATION ANALYSIS

Inputs

Environment Resources History

Transformation Process

Feedback

outputs

1 Organization Group Individual

and the other three components, (3) the in- formation processing model of organization- al design to explain the task-formal organi- zation and task-informal organization fits, or (4) an organizational climate model to ex- plain the fit between the informal organiza- tion and the other components. These mod- els and theories are listed as illustrations of how more specific models can be used in the context of the general model. Obviously, those mentioned above are just a sampling of possible tools that could be used.

In summary, then, we have de- scribed a general model for the analysis of organizations (see Figure 4). The organiza- tion is seen as a system or transformation process that takes inputs and transforms them into outputs-a process that is com- posed of four basic components. The critical dynamic is the fit or congruence among the components. We now turn our attention to

the pragmatic question of how to use this model for analyzing organizational prob- lems.

A PROCESS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL PROBLEM ANALYSIS

The conditions that face organizations fre- quently change; consequently, managers are required to continually engage in problem- identification and problemsolving activities. Therefore, managers must gather data on or- ganizational performance, compare the data with desired performance levels, identify the causes of problems, develop and choose action plans and, finally, implement and evaluate these action plans. These phases can be viewed as a generic problem-solving process. For long-term organizational viabil- ity, some type of problem-solving process 47

Figure 5

BASIC PROBLEM ANALYSIS STEPS USING THE CONGRUENCE MODEL

48

Step

1. Identify symptoms.

2. Specify inputs.

3. Identify outputs.

4. Identify problems.

5. Describe components of the organization

6. Assess congruence (fits).

7. Generate and identify causes.

8. Identify action steps.

must operate-and operate continuously. Experience with using the congru-

ence model for organizations for problem analysis in actual organizational settings has led to the development of an approach to us- ing the model that’s based on these generic problem-solving processes (see Figure 5). In this section, we will “walk through” this pro- cess, describing each step in the process and discussing how the model can be used at each stage. Here are the steps in the problem- analysis process:

1. ldentify symptoms: In any situ- ation initial information (symptomatic data) may indicate that there are problems, but not what the problems are or what the

Explanation

List data indicating possible existence of problems.

Identify the system. Determine nature of environment, resources, and

history. Identify critical aspects of strategy.

Identify data that define the nature of outputs at vari- ous levels (individual, group/unit, organizational). This should include desired outputs (from strategy), and actual outputs being obtained.

Identify areas where there are significant and meaning- ful differences between desired and actual outputs.

To the extent possible, identify penalties; that is, spe- cific costs (actual and opportunity costs) associated with each problem.

Describe basic nature of each of the four components with emphasis on their critical features.

Conduct analysis to determine relative congruence among components (draw on submodels as needed).

Analyze to associate fit with specific problems.

Indicate the possible actions to deal with problem causes.

causes are. Symptomatic data are important because the symptoms of problems may in- dicate where to look for more complete data.

2. Specify inputs: Once the symp- toms are identified, the starting point for analysis is to identify the system and the en- vironment in which it functions. This means collecting data about the nature of environ- ment, the type of resources the organization has, and the critical aspects of its history. In- put analysis also involves identifying the overall strategy of the organization-that is, its core mission, supporting strategies, and objectives.

3. Identify outputs: The third step

is an analysis of the organization’s outputs at the individual, group, and organizational levels. Output analysis actually involves two elements: (1) defining the desired or planned output through an analysis of strategy that explicitly or implicitly defines what the or- ganization wants to achieve in terms of out- put or performance indicators, and (2) col- lecting data that indicate the type of output the organization is actually achieving.

4. Identify problems: Symptoms may indicate problems-in this case, signifi- cant difference between desired or planned output and actual output. Such problems might be discrepancies (actual vs. expected) in organizational performance, group func- tioning, individual behavior, or affective re- actions. These data tell us what problems exist, but they still don’t tell us the causes. (Note: Where data are available, it’s fre- quently also useful to identify the costs asso- ciated with the problems or the penalties the organization incurs by not fixing the prob- lem. Penalties might be actual costs-in- creased expenses, and so on-or opportunity costs, such as revenue lost because of the problem .)

5. Describe organizational compo- nents: At this step the analysis to determine the causes of problems begins. Data are col- lected about the nature of each of the four major organizational components, including information about the component and its critical features in this organization.

6. Assess congruence (fits): Using the data collected in step 5 as well as applica- ble submodels or theories, an assessment is made of the positive or negative fit between each pair of components.

7. Generate hypotheses about prob- lem causes: Once the components are de-

scribed and their congruence assessed, the next step is to link together the congruence analysis with the problem identification (step 4). After analyzing to determine which are the poor fits that seem to be associated with, or account for, the output problems that have been identified, the patterns of congruence and incongruence that appear to cause the patterns of problems are deter- mined.

8. Identify action steps: The final step in problem analysis is to identify possi- ble action steps. These steps might range from specific changes to deal with relatively obvious problem causes to a more extensive data collection designed to test hypotheses about relatively more complex problems and causes.

In addition to these eight steps, some further steps need to be kept in mind. After possible actions are identified, prob- lem solving involves predicting the conse- quence of various actions, choosing the course of action, and implementing and evaluating the impact of the chosen course of action. It is, of course, important to have a general diagnostic framework to monitor the effects of various courses of action.

The congruence model and this problem-analysis process outline are tools for structuring and dealing with the complex reality of organizations. Given the indeter- minate nature of social systems, there is no one best way of handling a particular situa- tion. The model and the process could, how- ever, help the manager in making a number of decisions and in evaluating the conse- quences of those decisions. If these tools have merit, it is up to the manager to use them along with his or her intuitive sense (based on experience) to make the appro- priate set of diagnostic, evaluative, and ac- tion decisions. 49

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The model we’ve presented here reflects a particular way of thinking about organiza- tions. If that perspective is significant, the model might be used as a tool for handling more complex problems or for structuring more complex situations. Some directions for further thought, research, and theory de- velopment could include these:

1. Organizational change. The issue of organizational change has received a good deal of attention from both managers and academics. The question is how to effective- ly implement organizational change. The problem seems to center on the lack of a gen- eral model of organizational change. It is hard to think about a general model of orga- nizational change without a general model of organizations. The congruence perspective outlined here may provide some guidance and direction toward the development of a more integrated perspective on the processes of organizational change. Initial work in ap- plying the congruence model to the change issue is encouraging.

2. Organizational development over

time. There has been a growing realization that organizations grow and develop over time, and that they face different types of crises, evolve through different stages, and develop along some predictable lines. A model of organizations such as the one pre- sented here might be a tool for developing typology of growth patterns by indicating the different configurations of tasks, individ- uals, organizational arrangements, and in- formal organizations that might be most appropriate for organizations in different en- vironments and at different stages of devel- opment .

3. Organizational pathology. Or-

ganizational problem solving ultimately requires some sense of the types of problems that may be encountered and the kinds of patterns of causes one might expect. It is rea- sonable to assume that most problems en- countered by organizations are not wholly unique, but are predictable. The often ex- pressed view that “our problems are unique” reflects in part the lack of a framework of organizational pathology. The question is: Are there basic “illnesses” that organizations suffer? Can a framework of organizational pathology, similar to the physician’s frame- work of medical pathology, be developed? The lack of a pathology framework, in turn, reflects the lack of a basic functional model of organizations. Again, development of a congruence perspective might provide a common language to use for the identifica- tion of general pathological patterns of orga- nizational functioning.

4. Organizational solution types. Closely linked to the problem of pathology is the problem of treatment, intervention, or solutions to organizational problems. Again, there’s a lack of a general framework in which to consider the nature of organiza- tional interventions. In this case, too, the congruence model might be a means for con- ceptualizing and ultimately describing the different intervention options available in re- sponse to problems.

SUMMARY

This article has presented a general approach for thinking about organizational function- ing and a process for using a model to ana- lyze organizational problems. This partic- ular model is only one way of thinking about organizations; its clearly not the only model, nor can we claim it’s definitively the best model. It is one tool, however, that may be

useful for structuring the complexity of orga- nizational life and helping managers create, maintain, and develop effective organiza- tions.

CD SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

For a comprehensive review and synthesis of re- search in organizational behavior, see Marvin Dunnette’s Handbook of Industrial and Organiza- tional Psychology (Rand-McNally, 1976). Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn’s seminal work on organi- zations as systems, The Social Psychology of Or- ganizations (John Wiley & Sons, 1966), has been revised, updated, and extended in their 1978 edi- tion. See their new book for an extensive discus- sion of organizations as open systems and for a unique synthesis of the literature in terms of sys- tems ideas.

For a broad analysis of organizational behavior, see David Nadler, J. Richard Hack- man, and Edward E. Lawler’s Managing Organi- zational Behavior (Little, Brown, 1979) and see Charles Hofer and Daniel Schendel’s Strategy For- mulation: Analytical Concepts (West, 1978) for a discussion of strategy.

For an extensive discussion of output and effectiveness, see Paul Goodman and Johan- nes Pennings’s New Perspectives on Organization- al Effectiveness (Jossey-Bass, 1977) and Andrew Van de Ven and Diane Ferry’s Organizational Assessment (Wiley Interscience, 1980).

For more detail on organizational ar- rangements, see Jay R. Galbraith’s Designing Complex Organizations (Addison-Wesley, 1973); on job design and motivation, see J. Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham’s Work Redesign (Addison-Wesley, 1979); and on informal organi- zations, see Michael Tushman’s “A Political Ap- proach to Organizations: A Review and Rationale“ (Academy of Management Review, April 1977) and Jeffrey Pfeffer’s new book, Power and Politics in Organizations (Pittman Press, 1980).

Submodels corresponding to the various

components of our congruence model would in- clude: J. Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham’s job design model; Victor Vroom and Edward Lawler’s work on expectancy theory of motiva- tion and decision making--see Vroom’s Work and Motivation (Wiley, 1964) and Lawler’s Moti- vation in Work Organizations (Wadsworth Pub- lishing Co., 1973); Jay R. Galbraith, Michael Tushman, and David Nadler’s work on informa- tion processing models of organizational design; and George Litwin and Robert Stringer’s work on organization climate-see Litwin and Stringer’s Motivation and Organizational Climate (Harvard University Graduate School of Business Admini- stration, 1968).

David Nadler’s “An Integrative Theory of Organizational Change,” to appear in the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science in 1981, uses the congruence model to think about the gen- eral problems of organizational change and dy- namics. Several distinct levers for change are de- veloped and discussed. Other pertinent books of interest include: Jay R. Galbraith’s Organization Design (Addison-Wesley, 1979), Jay R. Galbraith and Daniel A. Nathanson’s Strategy Implementa- tion: The Role of Structure and Process (West, 1978), George C. Homans’s The Human Group (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1950), Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch’s Developing Orga- nizations: Diagnosis and Action (Addison-Wes- ley, 1969), Harold J. Leavitt’s “Applied Organiza- tion Change in Industry” in J. G. March’s (ed.) Handbook of Organizations (Rand-McNally, 1965) Harry Levinson’s Organizational Diagnosis (Harvard University Press, 1972), Harry Levin- son’s Psychological Man (Levinson Institute, 1976), Jay W. Lorsch and Alan Sheldon’s ‘The In- dividual in the Organization: A Systems View” in J. W. Lorsch and P. R. Lawrence’s (eds.) Manag- ing Group and Intergroup Relations (Irwin-Dor- sey, 1973, David A. Nadler and Noel M. Tichy’s ‘The Limitations of Traditional Intervention Technology in Health Care Organizations” in N. Margulies and J. A. Adams’s (eds.) Organization Development in Health Care Organizations (Ad- dison-Wesley, 1980), Edgar H. Schein’s Organiza- tional Psychology (Prentice-Hall, 1970), and James A. Seiler’s Systems Analysis in Organiza- tional Behavior (Irwin-Dorsey, 1967). 51